When it comes to foreign policy, especially on Russia, the Trump administration is a cacophony of discordant voices. While the president seeks friendly relations with President Vladimir Putin and mutes points of disagreement, prominent members of his administration are pushing for a radical re-orientation of America’s global strategy: a return to the Cold War framework in which Russia and China are treated as major threats to U.S. security.

In his introduction to a policy document called the Nuclear Policy Review, released on Friday, Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that Russia is adopting “military strategies and capabilities that rely on nuclear escalation for their success.” He added, “These developments, coupled with Russia’s invasion of Crimea and nuclear threats against our allies, mark Moscow’s unabashed return to Great Power competition.”

The phrase “Great Power competition” echoes the administration’s recently released National Defense Strategy, which argues, “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.” In plain English, this means that America should focus on defending itself against Russia and China, rather than fighting interminable wars in the Middle East. As Thomas Wright, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, noted in The Atlantic last week, this new policy reflects “a bipartisan consensus ... between mainstream Democratic and Republican foreign-policy experts that [President Barack Obama] had under-reacted to Russian and Chinese assertiveness.”

But if Mattis and the broader American foreign policy establishment see Russia and China as the main threats, Trump is more concerned with terrorism, North Korea, and illegal immigration (which he sees through a national-security prism).

“It has become abundantly clear that President Trump does not buy his own administration’s strategic shift toward great power competition,” Wright wrote. “Compare the new strategic doctrine to three of President Trump’s recent speeches—one that launched the National Security Strategy, his address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, and yesterday’s State of the Union. In each, there was at most a single, obligatory, passing reference to rivals like Russia and China, with little elaboration.” Wright persuasively argues that America has “two competing national security doctrines—Trump’s and that of his national security team. They are now operating in parallel universes.”

The risk of these dual doctrines is not just incoherence. It’s that they reinforce each other in dangerous ways, making a major international conflict much more likely.

Trump’s America First policy alienates traditional allies like South Korea, Japan, and Germany, who don’t know if a U.S. president who openly disdains alliance systems can be trusted. Such countries now have an incentive to pursue foreign policy agendas outside America’s orbit. This emboldens regional powers like Russia and China, who see the Trump era as a chance to expand their influence in the world. The America First policy, in that sense, isn’t the opposite of a Great Powers competition policy, but creates the preconditions for such a world.

America First and Great Power competition find common ground on the terrifying issue of nuclear weapons. Hawks like Mattis are pushing for America to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons to intimidate Russia and China, a policy Trump has bought into on nationalist grounds. “A new nuclear policy issued by the Trump administration on Friday, which vows to counter a rush by the Russians to modernize their forces even while staying within the treaty limits, is touching off a new kind of nuclear arms race,” The New York Times reported on Monday. “The Pentagon envisions a new age in which nuclear weapons are back in a big way—its strategy bristles with plans for new low-yield nuclear weapons that advocates say are needed to match Russian advances and critics warn will be too tempting for a president to use.”

Taken together, America First and Great Power competition are combustible: an erratic president given to threatening nuclear war against North Korea, combined with a foreign policy establishment that’s pursuing an arms race that will give the U.S. nuclear weapons that are more tempting to use, because they are supposedly more tactical and limited. And this is taking place in a world where, because of Trump’s instability, all sorts of powers—great and small—are jostling for advantage.

Although Trump and Mattis speak in different tongues, both are voicing militarily aggressive doctrines that increase the chance of conflict. What’s missing from the conversation is defenders of liberal internationalism, of the type that Obama articulated, which would seek security not in nuclear intimidation or nationalism but through international alliances and treaties. The Democrats, not without reason, have been eager to make hay about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia. But as a result, they’ve softened their criticism of those in the administration, like Mattis, who are pushing the Great Power agenda. This silence might make short-term political sense, but heightens the risk that the Trump administration’s two-faced foreign policy will lead the U.S. into a great and disastrous war.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by captaincrunch:

This silence might make short-term political sense, but heightens the risk that the Trump administration’s two-faced foreign policy will lead the U.S. into a great and disastrous war.

You have noticed politicians can't think ahead to the enviable consequences of decisions.

Nuking Japan was not suppose to lead to a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, but it did as an enviable consequence. Stalin knew that he would be next on the list to feel the mighty nuclear wrath of America and he responded. Look where that left the world in 2018. The justification for nuking Japan was to end the war, but the truth is that conventional firebombing would have worked equally as well.
www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/08/06/commentary/japan-surrender-world-war-ii/

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, in his 2005 book “Racing the Enemy,” provides compelling evidence that the Pacific War ended due to the entry of the Soviets, not the atomic bombings. Having tasted defeat at the hands of the Soviets twice in the late 1930s in Manchurian border clashes, the generals knew that the new front meant further resistance was futile.

Sheldon Garon, a professor of history at Princeton University, takes issue with Hasegawa’s contention that the military was insouciant about Japanese suffering and ready to fight to the last civilian. Recently, Garon gave a talk in Tokyo about an ongoing book project focusing on how the war was lost for Germany and Japan.

He argues that the U.S. was surprised by Japan’s sudden surrender, noting that by Aug. 19, 1945, America would have had three more atomic bombs ready and had six more in production — it did not anticipate a swift end.

According to Garon, the Japanese military was deeply concerned by worsening conditions in Japan because they were undermining the war effort. Authorities, for example, planned the evacuation of a few hundred thousand school children to spare them the urban conflagrations, but were not prepared for the mass exodus of adults who bailed because they knew the military could not protect them. Roads out of Tokyo were clogged with these refugees: 8.5 million fled Japanese cities in the final five months of war, paralyzing transport networks.

According to Garon, these acts of sabotage also meant that an orderly society was no longer obeying orders, responding to accumulating signs of impending defeat. Alas, many of these unlucky refugees fled to smaller cities, and thus were subject to more bombings as America moved onto second-tier targets. The U.S. dropped leaflets warning of impending strikes, and then delivered, stoking fear and undermining faith in the government.

Officials were also demoralized by Germany’s surrender, and the horrific fight to the end that Adolf Hitler insisted on, subjecting his people and cities to a relentless pounding.

Garon observes that the Germans fought like samurai, sacrificing all even when they knew it was for a losing cause. While much is made of Japanese authorities training women and children to resist U.S. invaders with bamboo staves, Garon notes that none ever did so. In contrast, Germany took desperate measures, resorting to full mobilization and deploying these untrained conscripts to battlefields where many died or were injured.

Japan’s diplomats in Europe were shocked by the devastation of Germany and conveyed their concerns about Hitler’s “fighting to the finish” strategy. They advised against emulating the Germans, and thus implicitly counseled surrender for the national interest. But finding an exit with dignity proved elusive.

Garon attributes Japan’s delayed surrender to military intransigence and diplomatic incompetence, a dithering that subjected Japan to needless devastation.

Finally, it was the Soviet entry into the war and the atomic bombings that precipitated a hasty surrender. But it was overdue because the signs of defeat, including a devastating series of setbacks on the home front, had been gathering for some time: endless fire bombings, growing shortages of food due to the U.S. blockade “Operation Starvation,” bereaved families and the subversion of people voting with their feet. There was no appetite for suffering the fate of the Nazis or subjecting the nation to more nightmarish ruination.

As the public — no longer willing to endure — soured on the war, what choice did the Emperor and his advisers have if the Imperial Household was to survive?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

The Pentagon pretends that the new nukes will just fill a gap under the deterrent fence so that “Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is unacceptable,” but what the Pentagon is really after is a credible nuclear war-fighting capability. This is the old fantasy that the Pentagon can safely fight a ‘limited’ nuclear war in some distant part of the world without risking major damage to America.

It’s a fantasy that has been killed many times, but it never stays dead for long. It just seems wrong and unnatural to the military mind that you should have these hugely powerful and expensive weapons and never be allowed to use them in any circumstances — that they exist entirely and exclusively to deter the other side from using its own nuclear weapons.

In every military generation there are frustrated generals who spin theories about how they might safely fight a ‘limited’ nuclear war. The first time their ideas gained a temporary foothold in American strategic thinking was in the late 1950s, and they have resurfaced at least twice since then.

Obama was heading in this direction already. His nuclear posture was to be in a position of a successful first strike, which is why he moved missiles right up to the Russian border. That's what caused the Russians to develop their dead-man devices... nuclear missiles that would be launched without the command of any living soldier.

All you could bitch about endlessly was RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! You didn't want ANY rapprochement between the USA and Russia; you assumed a posture of unrelenting hostility and were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west.

Now that you got what you wanted, you're suddenly fearful.

Sheesh.

You're all insane, did you know that?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Obama was heading in this direction already.

And with all his strength, Trump will take us the rest of the way, to where Obama fell short.

I was reading last week about John von Neumann, the expert on shockwave physics, designer of the implosion trigger for the Nagasaki atom bomb. When he was dying from brain cancer his hospital room was under heavy guard because of all the atom bomb, missile and computer secrets he knew. The generals would visit him to listen to his jokes and stories.

"Von Neumann's sense of invulnerability, or simply the desire to live, was struggling with unalterable facts. He seemed to have a great fear of death until the last... No achievements and no amount of influence could save him now, as they always had in the past. Johnny von Neumann, who knew how to live so fully, did not know how to die."

Maybe the generals should have mercifully taken von Neumann to the Nevada atom bomb test site and given him the hot death this genius had designed for others? Von Neumann goes kaBOOM!

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Now that you got what you wanted, you're suddenly fearful.

Yeah, (read this in a Valley Girl accent) we all like TOTALLY want to go to war with Russia. That would be *SWEET*.

NO, YOU DUMB GOATHERDER ...NO ONE WANTS A WAR, with Russia or anyone else...well, traditionally Rethugs like wars they can brag about, but we haven't had one in a while.

Ok, lemme fix it.

NO ONE *SANE* WANTS A WAR...

WE ALL WOULD REALLY REALLY REALLY LIKE RUSSIA TO MIND IT'S OWN FUCKING BUSINESS, but Russia ain't up for that. "Mother Russia" likes mind games.. and sabotage... because it's dick has frozen off and that's all it has left.

If you have other strategies to keep from being bullied by other nations other than sanctions (which clearly don't work) I'm sure gov't would be thrilled to hear it.

Quote: NO, YOU DUMB GOATHERDER ... NO ONE WANTS A WAR, with Russia or anyone else...

Well, YOU might not want war, and I sure don't want war, but Hillary was all for it, and THUGR and GSTRING and SECOND just can't seem tp allow even simple "contact" with Russia because... well, RUSSIA!!! Oh and BTW- OBAMA did a pretty good job of starting wars and knocking over nations during his tenure, too.

Quote:NO ONE *SANE* WANTS A WAR...

Which is why I said that GSTRING and THUGR and SECOND are insane. I guess we agree on that!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Well, YOU might not want war, and I sure don't want war, but Hillary was all for it, and THUGR and GSTRING and SECOND just can't seem tp allow even simple "contact" with Russia because... well, RUSSIA!!! Oh and BTW- OBAMA did a pretty good job of starting wars and knocking over nations during his tenure, too.

Quote:NO ONE *SANE* WANTS A WAR...

Which is why I said that GSTRING and THUGR and SECOND are insane. I guess we agree on that!

Signym, you are talking about "nuclear" war, right? A lot more war than "conventional" war, right?

Senator Barry Goldwater, running for the Republican Party nomination, gave an interview in which he discussed the use of low-yield atomic bombs in North Vietnam to defoliate forests and destroy bridges, roads, and railroad lines bringing supplies from communist China. During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs but was “repeating a suggestion made by competent military people.” Goldwater sounds like Trump, but with more moderation. Trump discussed Fire and Fury like the world has never seen against N Korea. No surprise that Trump’s military wants a small-size nuclear weapon, perfect for North Korea, added to the Federal Budget.
www.history.com/this-day-in-history/goldwater-suggests-using-atomic-weapons

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama was heading in this direction already. His nuclear posture was to be in a position of a successful first strike, which is why he moved missiles right up to the Russian border. That's what caused the Russians to develop their dead-man devices... nuclear missiles that would be launched without the command of any living soldier.

All you could bitch about endlessly was RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! You didn't want ANY rapprochement between the USA and Russia; you assumed a posture of unrelenting hostility and were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west.

Now that you got what you wanted, you're suddenly fearful.

Sheesh.

You're all insane, did you know that?

The endless fantasy brain that lives inside SIGNYM's skull. Making stuff up 24 hours a day... Please cite where ANYONE said they, "were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west."

Go on, fetch! Validate your rambling accusations just once. Can't? You just made sh*t up so you can whine? Check.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by captaincrunch:

The endless fantasy brain that lives inside SIGNYM's skull. Making stuff up 24 hours a day... Please cite where ANYONE said they, "were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west."

Go on, fetch! Validate your rambling accusations just once. Can't? You just made sh*t up so you can whine? Check.

Quote:You go to extremes with your notion that Democrats will nuke the world. Bringing out the nukes and shaking them in Russia's face is Republican territory, not Democrats.- SECONDRATE

Except when we're talking about Democratic neocons, which includes you, GSTRING, THUGR, OBAMA, and HILLARY.

Let's start with YOU and your yammering cohort here. YOU could not resist splattering the board with anti-Trump and anti-Russia posts, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded. Was it not you, hyperventilating over every "contact" between Team Trump and RUSSIA!!! as if that was prima facie evidence of collusion or treason or "something"???

Child, if you don't want war, you have to negotiate. And if you don't negotiate, you will have war. And I shouldn't have to tell you this ... but apparently I do... that negotiating takes contacts ... many of them .... between Russia and the USA. War is just the logical end of YOUR OWN position with regards to Russia. This is where YOU want to be, or at least where you've advocated for over a year-and-a-half. So stop hyperventilating about RUSSIA!!! already, as if it was some shapeless monster-under-the-bed. I have been asking YOU for YEARS to define America's interests so that you could envision some shape to your paranoia, bring it to practical level and decide when our existential interests had been tripped. YOU have been unwilling or unable to actually define America's interests, and so now here you are: having been stampeded by Dems and their deep state handlers, YOU've tripped one of our existential interests.

Well, bully for you. I hope you got what you wanted.

SECONDLY, I didn't hear any objections to OBAMA's nuclear provocations.

Quote:U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms [2014, under Obama]
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

I didn't hear any of YOUR objections to placing a "missile defense" in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep.

Quote:Russia Calls New U.S. Missile Defense System a ‘Direct Threat’
MAY 12, 2016
As American and allied officials celebrated the opening of a long-awaited missile defense system in Europe with a ribbon cutting and a band, the reaction in Russia on Thursday suggested the system had raised the risks of a nuclear war.

Russian officials reiterated their position that the American-built system imperiled Russia’s security. But the public discussion in Russia was darker, including online commentary of how a nuclear confrontation might play out in Europe, and the prospect that Romania, the system’s host, might be reduced to “smoking ruins.”

Signym, your whole idea that it is both political parties' fault is bullshit.

Signym, the existing nuclear program is not Obama’s. It has to be Congress’s nuclear program because the program started before Obama was President and continues a year and a month after he is gone. But it is not all of Congress’s nuclear program, it is the majority of Congress’s program. Actually, it is the Republicans’ program when you start counting who in Congress voted for what. The GOP can stop that nuclear program by not approving money for it. Has the GOP stopped it or decreased it a tiny bit? No, they increased the spending. The GOP is your party, Signym, not mine. Let me know how you and them will be handling the nuclear program. Will it be to blame the Democrats?

Quote:You go to extremes with your notion that Democrats will nuke the world. Bringing out the nukes and shaking them in Russia's face is Republican territory, not Democrats.- SECONDRATE

Except when we're talking about Democratic neocons, which includes you, GSTRING, THUGR, OBAMA, and HILLARY.

Let's start with YOU and your yammering cohort here. YOU could not resist splattering the board with anti-Trump and anti-Russia posts, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded. Was it not you, hyperventilating over every "contact" between Team Trump and RUSSIA!!! as if that was prima facie evidence of collusion or treason or "something"???

Nope - that was the voices in your head feeding your hatred.

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Child, if you don't want war, you have to negotiate. And if you don't negotiate, you will have war. And I shouldn't have to tell you this ... but apparently I do... that negotiating takes contacts ... many of them .... between Russia and the USA. War is just the logical end of YOUR OWN position with regards to Russia. This is where YOU want to be, or at least where you've advocated for over a year-and-a-half. So stop hyperventilating about RUSSIA!!! already, as if it was some shapeless monster-under-the-bed. I have been asking YOU for YEARS to define America's interests so that you could envision some shape to your paranoia, bring it to practical level and decide when our existential interests had been tripped. YOU have been unwilling or unable to actually define America's interests, and so now here you are: having been stampeded by Dems and their deep state handlers, YOU've tripped one of our existential interests.

Get help.

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, bully for you. I hope you got what you wanted.

I'm confused - you voted for Trump and he won and you're asking if I got what I wanted? I think you should ask yourself that. You said Hillary was going to start WWIII and voted for Trump BECAUSE of that. And yet here we are, on the brink with a delusional president. Well, bully for you. I hope you got what you wanted.

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
to allow even simple "contact" with Russia

Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS.

They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda.

WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT?????

They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.

I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY??

Well, first of all, GSTRING, here is prima facie evidence of what your cohort thinks like:

Quote: Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS. They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda. WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT????? They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.
I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY??

What the hell do we have to gain from that?? - WISHY

I can also bring quotes from THUGR, SGG, SECOND, and JO demonstrating the collective level of ignorance brought to the board about us (our American interests) and Russia and how the two intersect. All of your collective screeching and hyperventilating gives me a headache.

*****

WISHY, and now .... I'm going to address YOUR statement directly, and not just as an example.

Quote: Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS. They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda.- WISHY

Well, first of all WISHY, if you want an example of white power and warmongering agenda, look no further than the United States. Here's a question: which nation do you think has killed more "brown people" in the last 30 years or so? The United States, or Russia? Because there is no greater violation of "human rights" than killing someone, and if I wanted to point a finger at the biggest violator of the most important human right, where do you suppose that finger would point?

When you answer, BE SPECIFIC. Do some research, bring facts and figures to the board as to just who killed how many.

Quote: WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT?????

TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON???

Quote:They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.- WISHY

Okay, now, in terms of "who can be trusted", which nation do you suppose breaks the most important international laws most often?

Here's a little history for you: Russia was pretty cooperative with the United States until recently, despite the fact that we broke the oft-discussed and frequently-documented agreement not to move NATO closer to their border; that our economic "shock treatment" plunged Russia into a nightmare collapse that caused a 10-year reduction in lifespan and took them 15 years to recover from, and that we have been rampaging thru the Middle East since about 2003.

in 2008, we signed a deal with Russia on peaceful uses of nuclear fuels.

In 2011 Russia ratified an agreement with Obama, opening an air corridor for US military supplies into Afghanistan [so that we could kill brown people. It was signed in 2009 but not ratified until 2011 under Medvedev].

In 2011, Russia voted with America to allow establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.

Apparently, though, it was NATO's decision to turn the Libyan no-fly zone into full-on destruction of Libya that soured Russia on cooperating with the United States, since the NATO had been taking over more of eastern Europe; that John McCain and other American politicians provoked Georgia into attacking S Ossetia in 2008; and that the USA had been more-or-less rampaging thru the Middle East and N Africa since 2003.

So when you say that Russia can't be trusted ... well, apparently neither can the USA.

Quote:I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY?? -WISHY

WISHY, you sound like a helpless, hapless, powerless fluttery female.

America is NOT helpless. Our military is larger than the next 10 militaries COMBINED, and most of THOSE are our allies! We are fully capable of defending our interests and negotiating from a position of strength.

What we are NOT capable of, however, is having unilateral control over the world, like we did roughly 1990-2005. We (you) need to get used to that fact. Since we can't just tell everyone what to do/ sit down/ shut up, we now have to identify our REAL interests* and put our strength to defending them.

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Here's a question: which nation do you think has killed more "brown people"

TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON???

Okay, now, in terms of "who can be trusted", which nation do you suppose breaks the most important international laws most often?

Here's a little history for you: Russia was pretty cooperative with the United States until recently

So when you say that Russia can't be trusted ... well, apparently neither can the USA.

WISHY, you sound like a helpless, hapless, powerless fluttery female.

America is NOT helpless. Our military is larger than the next 10 militaries COMBINED, and most of THOSE are our allies! We are fully capable of defending our interests and negotiating from a position of strength.

it's our own dear beloved deep state.

BROWN PEOPLE??? What the hell are you on about?? I don't support half the crap we've done either, it doesn't mean Russia is less corrupt or less bent to take us over or manipulate our systems. WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS.

WE are being dicked with by these asshats. And you think we should just let them do whatever they want to do to us because,... NUCLEAR WAR???? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??!!!

There is NO GODDAMN RISK of nuclear war with Russia right now, SO WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT EVER MATTER????

RUSSIA!! BREAKS EVERY LAW THEY DON'T MAKE THEMSELVES, AND A FEW THEY DO.
They have no problem breaking every rule to get what THEY WANT...just like the Olympics. They broke doping so much they got banned!

Which doesn't even matter because no matter what Russia does, no matter what we do...

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Even if you don't answer ANYTHING from the last post, I have to know..

WHAT made you begin to obsess over the idea of nuclear war with Russia anyway??

I don't think you are even old enough to personally remember the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Were your parents obsessed with it?? Did they beat you if you didn't constantly worry about Nuclear War?? You have serious brainwash level concern with this. Something is not right with you.

Are you from the future or something?? Come back to warn us?? If you are, you are TOTALLY going about this the wrong way. TOTALLY.

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
And so the Democratic party becomes the party of War.

Everything Wishy just said sounded like it came straight from GWB's mouth.

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

SHOVE YOUR PILLS UP YOUR ASS.

I SAID I DON'T SUPPORT HALF THE SHIT THIS COUNTRY DOES, WHAT HALF YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE????

See? If Russia successfully hacked into our voter rolls, and if they're really trying to "take over" and "manipulate our systems" .... why didn't they? I mean, they were right there ... they COULD have. So, what stopped them?

Quote:WE are being dicked with by these asshats. And you think we should just let them do whatever they want to do to us because... NUCLEAR WAR???? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??!!! - WISHY

Whoa! You're boiling over on the stove there, WISHY! First of all. WHO said that we should "let them do whatever they want to us"? Was that me???

I don't think so!

I've been bitching about the "backdoors" that the NSA had MS build into their operating system since whenever, and about the very very lax cybersecurity that EVERYONE (Equifax/ credit card companies, hospitals, banks, government databases, utilities) seems content with.

Secondly, what HAVE they "done to us"? Do you see them invading our shores? Robbing our banks? Changing our votes? Turning off our infrastructure? So what are you so hot about? But hey, come up with a list of things that you think Russia has "done to us" that might explain your voluminous screeching and hyperventilating.

Quote: There is NO GODDAMN RISK of nuclear war with Russia right now, SO WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT EVER MATTER????- WISHY

Ahem! How would you know? Since you seem to think that even reading about Russia will contaminate you somehow, you know nothing about Russian foreign policy statements, Russian military technology, and Russian nuclear posture. I doubt that you have a personal line to Putin; and you sure haven't put much thought into the topic, so your opinion is worthless.

Quote:RUSSIA!! BREAKS EVERY LAW THEY DON'T MAKE THEMSELVES, AND A FEW THEY DO.- WISHY

SO WHAT???!?!?!! Like I said, do you see them invading our shores? Robbing our banks? Changing our votes? Turning off our infrastructure?

No??

Then what's your gorram problem?

Quote:They have no problem breaking every rule to get what THEY WANT...just like the Olympics. They broke doping so much they got banned!

Oh big fucking deal. WE break every rule to get what we want, and that includes killing more than a million brown people, and of the two, I really think that our rule-breaking is more consequential. Has it ever occurred to you that any other nation, when facing a military as large as ours, with our history of invading and destroying nations at whim, might have legitimate security fears of their own?

Quote:Which doesn't even matter because no matter what Russia does, no matter what we do... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .WE.DON'T.WANT.TO.BE.RUSSIA. EVER. NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR NO.

MORE screeching and hyperventilating?

Who says that we should, or that Russia - or anyone except ourselves - could ever "turn us" into Russia? Wow, you've really got an emotional problem, WISHY. Taking a guess, and with your history (as you've posted here) you feel vulnerable and powerless, and when facing an adversary that seems big and determined, you react like a young helpless girl. But that's inaccurate; the USA is NOT a powerless, helpless young girl. You might want to keep that in mind.

Quote: Have YOU ever NEGOTIATED with a bully??? IT DOESN'T WORK. The only thing that shuts down a bully is to make them scared with a large show of force.- WISHY

But if you go around scaring people with a large show of force all of the time, and follow through to destruction MOST of the time, don't YOU become the bully?? And maybe, instead of acting "defensively", what you wind up doing is scaring other people so much that they gang up on you out of sheer fear?

Quote:PEOPLE AREN'T REASONABLE, bullies especially! YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE REASONED WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- WISHY

So far, WISHY, you're not showing much reason.

Quote:Russia does NOT want to be reasoned with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- WISHY

MORE screeching and hyperventilating! How would you know? I mean ... really ... how would you know? Have you ever studied the history of our relationship with Russia?

Quote: I know what it's like to be around someone who constantly thinks about the worst case scenario, but you are absolutely OBSESSED with a completely improbable worst case scenario.- WISHY

I'm not the one who started this thread. I suggest that you read the title and then look at the originator.

Quote:You don't even make a microscopic SPECK of sense. -WISHY

What you posted is 100% emotion and 0% reason.

Quote:Even if you don't answer ANYTHING from the last post, I have to know..

WHAT made you begin to obsess over the idea of nuclear war with Russia anyway??

As I mentioned, it is the topic of the thread, which I did not start.

Quote:I don't think you are even old enough to personally remember the Cuban Missile Crisis.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? You keep making assumptions. Well, you happen to be wrong. Again.

Quote:Were your parents obsessed with it?? Did they beat you if you didn't constantly worry about Nuclear War?? You have serious brainwash level concern with this. Something is not right with you.- WISHY

Again, I did not start this thread. But if you want to talk about obsessions: I think you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia. You invest it with far more power than it really has. And then you seem determined to deny the one aspect where it has parity.

Quote:Are you from the future or something?? Come back to warn us?? If you are, you are TOTALLY going about this the wrong way. TOTALLY. - WISHY

Well, THAT was a convincing argument!
[/snark]

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Barack Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, for the first time ruled out a nuclear attack against non-nuclear weapon states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Trump’s NPR goes in the opposite direction and suggests that the U.S. could employ nuclear weapons in “extreme circumstances” to defend the “vital interests” of the United States and its allies. The document states:

Quote:Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.

Got that? Trump wants to be able to retaliate against a non-nuclear and perhaps even non-military attack on U.S. infrastructure — say, a cyberattack on the power grid? — with a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions. To call such a move disproportionate would be a severe understatement.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/08/donald-trump-nuclear-war/

Second, the new NPR calls for the development of a new generation of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. These smaller nukes, the document suggests, would be tactical, not strategic; deployed to the battlefield, rather than dropped on a city. The problem with this argument is that the atomic bombs used against Hiroshima (200,000 dead) and Nagasaki (70,000 dead) could also be considered low-yield nuclear weapons, in terms of their explosive capacity.

There is also the clear lowering of the threshold for nuclear weapons use: It becomes easier to justify the launch of a small nuclear weapon on the basis of a supposedly lower explosive force. Yet “a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon,” as Ronald Reagan’s former Secretary of State George Shultz testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee the day before the release of Trump’s NPR. “One of the alarming things to me is this notion that we can have something called a small nuclear weapon … and that somehow that’s usable,” Shultz added. “Your mind goes to the idea that, yes, nuclear weapons become usable. And then we’re really in trouble, because a big nuclear exchange can wipe out the world.”

It would be a worrying development if any president of the United States announced, with little debate or discussion, a plan both to build more tactical nuclear weapons and use them in response to non-nuclear attacks; a nuclear strategy that makes the use of nukes more, not less, likely. But when that president is Donald J. Trump . . . Lest we forget, this is a president who, during his election campaign, displayed complete ignorance about the “nuclear triad”; called for an “unpredictable” nuclear weapons policy, while refusing to rule out using nukes against the Islamic State or even in Europe (because “it is a big place”); and asked a foreign policy adviser three times, during a single hourlong briefing, “Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” This is a commander-in-chief, who since coming to office a year ago, has demanded a tenfold increase in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons; and casually threatened North Korea “with fire and fury like the world has never seen”.

Giving Trump new nukes AND new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well.

Quote:Giving Trump new nukes AND new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well.

Well, to bring up YOUR point, this is the Pentagon's view of things. Which Trump is probably eager to join.

Yes, this is a worrisome development. IF your national defense strategy/ nuclear posture is "do what we say or we'll nuke you", that's a sign of weakness, not strength. I think the reason why the Pentagon is aiming for "low" yield nuclear weapons is because that's the only thing they have to offer right now. The CIA (the Pentagon's rival) can wage "wars on the cheap" by whipping up divisions in nations, recruiting and paying proxies, and a program of secret drone strikes. The military is hobbled with a Cold War strategy and big aircraft carriers (which are extremely vulnerable to attacks by modern missiles) and "heavy" invasion capability, as well as extremely expensive planes that can't fly (which can be denied airspace by modern missiles).

To dig into what Mattis is saying more deeply, he said that the USA would no longer focus on terrorism. In some senses, the GWOT (global war on terror) than Bush started was the CIA's war; where they fed terrorists with one hand and killed them with the other. GWOT was a non-military war. Now, GWOT might be prosecuted militarily, as when terrorists claim and hold territory. OTOH, if the CIA is no longer funding and arming them (remember the power turnover in Saudi Arabia, from whence much money came?) and their drug operations are allowed to whither, maybe terrorist groups will just die on the vine anyway. So possibly w/drawing military attention from terrorists won't have any negative consequences.

OTOH, OUR problems with Russia and China don't really respond to military force either. Our biggest problem with China is related to balance of trade, and our reliance on the petrodollar. Self created. Our biggest problem with Russia is our policy of continued insertion into Russian "sphere of influence", with the background goal of obliterating Russia. Self created. The only way to solve these problems is with better trade, financial, and policy plans.

When Mattis says ... “If you threaten us, it will be your longest and worst day.” .... I can be fully onboard with that. The problem is, the deep state tends to create/ see threats that don't even exist, and they "see" them ALL OVER THE WORLD. So whether or not this policy is realistic or not greatly depends on how realistic the military is about where they can defend our interests, or whether or not the solutions are really non-military.

Possibly, Mattis just wants more $$$$ for his empire, and doesn't really plan on using any new/ strengthened capabilities.

Given all that, does it come as a relief to know that the Trump Administration just met with all three Russian security heads? I know YOU were hyperventilating about it; how do you feel about it now?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As I mentioned, it is the topic of the thread, which I did not start.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? You keep making assumptions. Well, you happen to be wrong.
Again, I did not start this thread. But if you want to talk about obsessions: I think you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia. You invest it with far more power than it really has. .

This is just INSANE. Literally.

You are completely oblivious about everything Russia has done and wants to do. Intentionally. You rationalize and downplay everything that they do, when they should not be doing ANY OF IT. PERIOD.

US infrastructure and government agencies are constantly under attack, a few weeks ago the White House confirmed to have suffered a cyber attack on its computer network which lasted for almost two weeks.

To have any recall of the Cuban Missile Crisis you would have to be in your 60's and you aren't. Unless you had your kid in your fifties. Right.

This thread was started BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSTANT OBSESSIONS. You really believe that nuclear war could break out at any second with people we aren't in REGULAR WAR with. That is the very definition of paranoid delusion.

I'm done. You can't reason with someone who is intentionally blind and off their rocker.

I will not discuss nuclear war with you ever again, and I'd advise everyone else not to play into your delusion. It's not healthy.

A review of several thousands of pages of congressional testimony, federal budgets and audit reports, plus an analysis of lobbying and campaign contribution data, shows that the four defense contractors running the two New Mexico nuclear weapons labs, Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratory, enjoy a particularly symbiotic relationship with Congress.

That relationship begins with money.

Since 1998, these four contractors have contributed more than $20 million to congressional campaigns around the nation. Last year alone, they spent almost $18 million lobbying Washington to ensure that funding for nuclear weapons projects continues even as nuclear stockpiles shrink.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the outlay is a bargain considering what’s at stake for the contractors.

“It’s an insignificant cost of doing business relative to the potential income from these contracts,” she said.

Lawmaker-turned-nuclear consultant

Republican Heather Wilson left Congress in January 2009 after a decade as a New Mexico congresswoman. She had lost her bid to jump up to the Senate seat vacated by her mentor, Pete Domenici.

After losing, she set up a consulting business and, within days of leaving office, Wilson – an Air Force veteran – was consulting mainly for the two New Mexico weapons labs.

Over the next two years, Wilson was paid more than $400,000 by Lockheed’s Sandia Corp. and the consortium of contractors running the Los Alamos lab – to help them extend and expand federal contracts and get more business, according to the first of two scathing inspector general reports. Eventually, the contractors were forced to reimburse the government for the federal funds they used to pay Wilson for her advocacy work.

Asked about the significance of that outcome, the Lockheed communications office responded to Reveal via email: “With regards to the inspector general’s report, Sandia has cooperated with the Inspector General’s review and will continue to do so.” Wilson declined to comment.

Wilson’s support for the labs persisted after she left the consulting business in early 2012 and ran for the Senate again. When the Obama administration cut funding for a Los Alamos lab project, Wilson told the Albuquerque Journal: “Not only is this bad for our country and its national security, it’s bad for New Mexico and our economy.”

For New Mexico, the second-poorest state after Mississippi, nuclear weapons and military bases are undeniably a lifeblood. Out of the $27.5 billion in federal dollars poured into the state in 2013, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts study, about $5 billion went to Los Alamos, Sandia and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the nuclear weapons waste facility east of Carlsbad, where accidents last year exposed dozens of workers to radiation.

Billions more were spent on the state’s four main military bases. The city of Alamogordo, next to Holloman Air Force Base and the Army’s White Sands Missile Range – home of the Trinity Site, where the first atomic bomb was tested in July 1945 – benefits from $450 million a year in military spending, according to the local chamber of commerce.

The labs and bases, and the defense contractors that run or contract with them, also are an integral part of New Mexico’s economic fabric. Los Alamos, Sandia and White Sands are three of the state’s top 10 employers, together providing about 24,000 jobs.

New Mexico politicians helping the labs has a long history in the state, said local political analyst Joe Monahan. It dates back to World War II and the development of the first nuclear bomb under Los Alamos Director J. Robert Oppenheimer.

“An army of lobbyists is great,” the center’s Krumholz said. “But an army of insiders who know how to navigate the halls of power, can socialize with politicians on weekends and ultimately play the system like a violin is so much better.”

This was my response to your question as to why I'm posting about nuclear Armageddon in this thread.

Quote: As I mentioned, it is the topic of the thread, which I did not start.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? You keep making assumptions. Well, you happen to be wrong.

Again, I did not start this thread. But if you want to talk about obsessions: I think you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia. You invest it with far more power than it really has - SIGNY

Quote:This is just INSANE. Literally.
You are completely oblivious about everything Russia has done and wants to do. Intentionally. You rationalize and downplay everything that they do, when they should not be doing ANY OF IT. PERIOD.- WISHY

Look, I "get" that you're terrified of what Russia "might" be able to do. You're as mesmerized by that prospect as others were mesmerized by the prospect of Saddam's so-called WMD, and what he "might" do with them. And, as it turns out, he didn't have them and of course could do nothing with what he didn't have.

Quote:They ARE attacking infrastructure, I see it in the news all the time. US infrastructure and government agencies are constantly under attack, a few weeks ago the White House confirmed to have suffered a cyber attack on its computer network which lasted for almost two weeks.
-WISHY

You do? Have power grids gone dark? Have banks failed? Water still coming to your taps? Have hospital records been made unavailable? Is Google email still coming thru? Credit card still being processed? Internet connection and phone still OK? Can you still order thru Amazon?

Quote: Guess you just conveniently miss that, huh?-WISHY

No, I'm fully aware of cyberattacks on our banks and infrastructure. In fact, I was sitting at my bank trying to open an account when it was undergoing a massive DDOS attack. I have looked at computer logs showing all of the many-times-a-minute "knocks on the door" of criminals trying to implant malware. My records at Equifax, the IRS, and elsewhere, have been compromised many times over.

But what does this have to do with Russia?

The really worrisome ones have nothing to do with Russia, and a lot to do with cyber criminals, based, among other places, in Ukraine:

So, WISHY, let's assume that Russia could take down any of our critical systems in a couple of days. Why haven't they???

Quote:To have any recall of the Cuban Missile Crisis you would have to be in your 60's and you aren't. Unless you had your kid in your fifties. Right.

What the hell are you talking about? I AM in my sixties! And our child is almost half my age (physically) but far less than that (mentally). My god, you're an ass. And a stupid one at that. What do you think a catastrophic brain bleed DOES to a newborn? Do you think we worry about our child for NOTHING? My god, do you think that you're the ONLY one who has problems? I can't believe what a self-centered bitch you're being.

Quote: This thread was started BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSTANT OBSESSIONS. You really believe that nuclear war could break out at any second with people we aren't in REGULAR WAR with. That is the very definition of paranoid delusion.- WISHY

Why don't you ask the originator why they started the thread, instead of making another WRONG assumption and just shoveling all blame on me? I mean really, WISHY, you just work from one wrong assumption after another wrong assumption, don't you?

Quote:I'm done. You can't reason with someone who is intentionally blind and off their rocker.- WISHY

Erm... I wasn't the one referencing a FICTIONAL MOVIE based on a TOY CHARACTER to make my point about the REAL WORLD, so I'd go a little easier on slinging around the idea of "other" people being nuts.

Quote:I will not discuss nuclear war with you ever again- WISHY

Good! If I were you, I'd definitely not discuss this from such a state of ignorance.

The reality is that you're unrealistically afraid of some things and unrealistically sanguine about others, and it's skewing your thinking.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I AM in my sixties! And our child is almost half my age (physically) but far less than that (mentally).

Maybe you should stop referring to her as a "child" then.
She is a handicapped ADULT. I'm sure no one here had a clue what her age was. But, since you call me a bitch just for not knowing her age...I'd have to say I completely see where she gets her messed up mental DNA from.

And the reason Russia hasn't done worse, is we have agencies that stop it before it gets WORSE. It frequently doesn't make the news until weeks after something has happened, and THEN they downplay it.......THIS is the kind of people they are. I can't begin to imagine why you would defend them if you are American (which we know you aren't)

"Just to recap, the Russians didn’t just supply performance-enhancing drugs to scores of athletes. We’ve seen that act before. This time it constructed an actual building in Sochi next to the laboratory that tested athlete samples. It then drilled a small hole in the shared wall. Each night after the lab closed, it had workers on either side pass clean samples in and dirty samples out.
A few predictable things happened. Russia won the most medals. No Russians tested positive for PEDs. The man who orchestrated it, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, who much later acknowledged the scheme, was awarded a prestigious honor by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Once the scam was uncovered, Rodchenkov fled to America fearing for his safety, which seems reasonable after two of his cohorts turned up dead. Just a coincidence, of course."

Quote:I AM in my sixties! And our child is almost half my age (physically) but far less than that (mentally).

Maybe you should stop referring to her as a "child" then.
She is a handicapped ADULT. I'm sure no one here had a clue what her age was. But, since you call me a bitch just for not knowing her age...I'd have to say I completely see where she gets her messed up mental DNA from. - WISHY

No, I called you a bitch because you made all kinds of wrong assumptions about me, and everything else, and just ran along with them in total and malicious ignorance. THAT'S why you're a bitch.

Quote:And the reason Russia hasn't done worse, is we have agencies that stop it before it gets WORSE. It frequently doesn't make the news until weeks after something has happened, and THEN they downplay it.......THIS is the kind of people they are. I can't begin to imagine why you would defend them if you are American (which we know you aren't)

There you go again, being the bitch that you are.

WITCHY, if criminal enterprises can steal so much information and implant malware around the world, holding hundreds of thousands of computers for ransom, do you think a determined state actor could not do MORE???

I happen to be married to a computer expert, and he has told me that our cyber security is laughable. Many of our important installations and institutions - like the air traffic control station east of LA; our fleet of cruisers and littorals; banks and hospitals, credit card processing centers and business servers - still run on Microsoft. MICROSOFT! for god's sake. I was working with our IT department, and learned that they have not patched our server software since it was loaded .... many years ago. that was the same problem as at Equifax. Security-wise, they're as solid as swiss cheese.

Quote:"Just to recap, the Russians didn’t just supply performance-enhancing drugs to scores of athletes. We’ve seen that act before. This time it constructed an actual building in Sochi next to the laboratory that tested athlete samples. It then drilled a small hole in the shared wall. Each night after the lab closed, it had workers on either side pass clean samples in and dirty samples out.- WITCHY

WHO CARES??? Seriously! You've got to be one twisted sister to obsess about shit like that!

Let's assume that Russia can do everything horrible that you imagine that they can.

I think they probably can, too. (And BTW, so can we.)

But they haven't.

Why not? And trust me, it's not because our cybersecurity is so great!

****

WISHY, I'm sorry but you CLEARLY don't have a clue about cybersecurity or nuclear options and you're just as wrong about me. So why don't you throttle down?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You've got to be one twisted sister to obsess about shit like that!

Let's assume that Russia can do everything horrible that you imagine that they can.

WISHY, I'm sorry but you CLEARLY don't have a clue about cybersecurity or nuclear options and you're just as wrong about me.

And you have to be a complete and total idio..

Oh, wait....Crazy We already covered that.

It's not the cyber security they are concerned about. If it has gotten to THAT POINT then the CIA and FBI and the other half dozen alphabet soup agencies haven't done their job. I read all the time about things that have been thwarted that don't make the general news, so despite your "genius" husband, there are things that you don't know about going on. He may know computers, but he isn't "in the know" if neither one of you thinks Russia is a threat.

If they AREN'T a threat, why obsess over nuclear war???
Uh huh. Right.

I'm heading to the store now, and won't be in most of tomorrow, so don't bother. I'm done with you.

Quote:I read all the time about things that have been thwarted that don't make the general news= WISHY

From your lofty vantage point as the sick housewife of an Asperger's coal miner in Bummphuck, Indianna? Well, what ARE your sources, sweetie? Have a personal line to Bremmer, do you? It's not that I think you're lying or anything, but ... LINKS PLEASE.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.

But what about the nukes? While you are hurling bombs at WishIMay, we have lost track of Trump.

It would be a worrying development if any president announced, with little debate or discussion, a plan to build more tactical nuclear weapons and use them in response to non-nuclear attacks; a nuclear strategy that makes the use of nukes more, not less, likely. But when that president is Donald J. Trump . . . Lest we forget, this is a president who, during his election campaign, displayed complete ignorance about the “nuclear triad”; called for an “unpredictable” nuclear weapons policy, while refusing to rule out using nukes against the Islamic State or even in Europe (because “it is a big place”); and asked a foreign policy adviser three times, during a single hourlong briefing, “Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” This is a commander-in-chief, who since coming to office a year ago, has demanded a tenfold increase in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons; and casually threatened North Korea “with fire and fury like the world has never seen”.

Giving Trump new nukes and new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well.

Donald Trump’s campaign aide Carter Page boasted he was a “Kremlin adviser” in 2013, years before a dossier about Trump’s Russian connections was prepared during the presidential campaign, Time magazine reported.

Page, a key figure in the Republican-authored memo released Friday that Trump allies claim shows FBI bias against the president, bragged about his Kremlin connections in an Aug. 13, 2013, letter to an academic publication about a manuscript he had submitted, according to Time.

“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their presidency of the G-20 Summit next month,” Page wrote in the letter.

It would be comforting to think that the desire for "tactical" nukes was just a money-grab, because THAT can be satisfied just by throwing money at the MIC; which is a far less dangerous posture than thinking that you're acutally going to ... yanno ... use them.

So, is our military really going to threaten other nuclear powers with nuclear weapons?

I see that there is rivalry between the CIA/State and Pentagon. Obama especially relied on a CIA/State "war on the cheap" approach (via NGOs, internal splinter groups, AID/NED, proxies, drones, spec ops/ contractors, and satraps) because of the bad optics and potential losses of "boots on the ground" invasions, but that approach failed in Syria, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, and (partially) Ukraine after decades of success.

Trump has reversed course on that: It's no secret that he's selected the military over the CIA/ State as his force. My hope is that military leadership has a more sober and realistic assessment on the limits of use of force. My fear is that the current military leadership so politicized that they will continue to forward the neocon goal of "full spectrum dominance". Full spectrum dominance, IMHO, is not only unethical and costly, it is extremely DANGEROUS to American security.

Clouding the interpretation of the situation is that Trump quite often doesn't mean what he says, and will often say things to force events in the opposite direction. For example: "You want hostility to Russia? YOU GOT IT!" Sometimes, nothing makes your butt pucker more than getting what you SAY you want, in spades.

So shortly before the US military attacked a Syrian Army affiliate east of the Euphrates, and Lavrov pulled the pin on a political grenade by formally accusing the United States of attempting to "partition" Syria, Russian intelligence officials were here in the USA meeting with other intelligence officials. What was the content of the meeting? We'll attack your guys east of the Euphrates, and we understand that you have to say a lot of bad things about it, but I gotta get these neocons off my back"?

The only definitive evidence as to what this all "means" .... bluster versus judo versus reality ... is WHERE THOSE WARHEADS ARE EVENTUALLY PLACED. Putting them on missiles right on the Russian border, within minutes of Moscow, is a supremely destabilizing action.

It's possible that, after having voted for Trump to reduce our footprint around the world, we're right back with the more "kinetic" approach in Syria that Hillary promised; possibly Trump has been out-maneuvered by neocons, who have packed both the secrecy-state and the MIC. OTOH, there may be negotiations going on in the background that we know nothing about. So for me, this is still a case of "watchful waiting" to see how things shake out.

Your thoughts?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

. . . possibly Trump has been out-maneuvered by neocons, who have packed both the secrecy-state and the MIC. OTOH, there may be negotiations going on in the background that we know nothing about. So for me, this is still a case of "watchful waiting" to see how things shake out.

Your thoughts?

Signym, do you get cheated in life because you are waiting for proof, the kind used in court rooms, before you will take action? We are in the middle of a $80 billion dollar per year scam and you are acting as if you need more evidence. The Pentagon’s boost for new nukes shows what Congress does when it cares. The budget deal provides a $160 billion boost to military spending over two years on top of a $549 billion annual baseline. I am not in a position to say whether spending $629 billion this year and $709 billion next year and, maybe, $789 billion the year after on the military rather than “only” $549 billion is going to solve any major social problems in American life, though I will admit I am skeptical by instinct. But I’m struck by the logic used by key congressional leaders to justify the $80 billion-per-year increase. Roughly speaking, they are saying this is what military leaders say the military needs to meet its strategic goals of buying more nukes.

Paul Ryan @SpeakerRyan
With today’s vote, we’re finally going to get the military the budget they need to fulfill Secretary Mattis’ national defense strategy. That is by far the biggest achievement in this bill. http://spkrryan.us/2EasIXR 10:10 AM - Feb 8, 2018

Everything is driven by the Pentagon. The Pentagon says it needs $80 billion more this year, and the old Budget Control Act bargain was that increases in defense spending should be matched by increases in non-defense spending. Republicans never liked that bargain, and they run the show in Washington so they are now demanding that the non-defense boost be smaller than the defense boost. I am familiar with fast talking Texans trying to cheat, which is dangerous for them to do around me. I stop them by grabbing them, squeezing hard, and breathing in their face. (Halitosis as a negotiating tool.) Somebody, not me, should do that to Trump, his Defense Secretary, and Paul Ryan.

The huge swindle continues, all wrapped in the American flag and honoring the troops for sacrificing their lives for the country (a soldier died, so give Trump $80 billion for nukes to honor that soldier, whatever his name was; it's a patriotic thing to buy nukes; with his last breath the soldier said, "The troops need low-yield atom bombs so that they won't die like I did."):

President Donald J. Trump signed a two-year, bipartisan budget bill this morning that ends Congress’ brief overnight shutdown of the federal government.

“Just signed Bill. Our Military will now be stronger than ever before,” President Trump tweeted this morning. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything — and more. First time this has happened in a long time.”

The President then laid out what must be accomplished in 2018. “Costs on non-military lines will never come down if we do not elect more Republicans in the 2018 Election, and beyond,” he tweeted. “This Bill is a BIG VICTORY for our Military, but much waste in order to get Dem votes.”

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!-----------------------------------------
"Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry

Quote: Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okie dokie! No links from WISHY!

WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.

Yeah, you were being so nice, you only used "bitch" every other line.
You and 6ix and Niki have been picking on my kid and my husband/not saying anything when the others did... for a while now. Turnabout feels nice.

And I know you are dense, but I posted I wouldn't be home most of the day today or last night...so yeah.

Why should I do YOUR JOB researching what I'm saying, it takes all of five minutes to type in "Russian attacks on the US" or any variant thereof???

Here's from TWO days ago...
Russian cyberspies have tricked employees at US defence companies into exposing their emails.

The security companies targeted were working on sensitive defence contracts, including weaponised drones, missiles and stealth fighter jets.

It is unclear what has been stolen but both large and small companies including Boeing Co, Airbus Group, Lockheed Martin Corp, Raytheon Co and General Atomics, were targetted.

The hackers are associated with the cyberespionage group known as Fancy Bears.

But Evelyn Farkas, a former Russian policy expert for the Pentagon, told CBS News the fly-bys were undeniably "dangerous behavior."

"They're playing with fire here," she said. "I'm sure that U.S. ships and other non-Russian ships have been just as close in the past. And even if they haven't, again, they're in international waters; there's nothing provocative about what we're doing. Unlike the Russians, we actually telegraph very transparently what we're doing."

A pair of Russian attack jets flew 20 passes on the ship Monday, coming as close as 1,000 yards at an altitude of 100 feet, ignoring radio calls from the Cook and forcing the ship to cancel flight operations.

There is a perception among the media and general public that Russia ended its social-media operations following last year’s election and that we need worry only about future elections. But that perception is wrong. Russia’s information operations in the United States continued after the election and they continue to this day.

A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials.

While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation’s electrical grid. And it raises fears in the U.S. government that Russian government hackers are actively trying to penetrate the grid to carry out potential attacks.

Symantec said the new wave of attacks is being carried out by a group called Dragonfly 2.0 -- believed to be sophisticated Russian hackers -- which targeted dozens of energy companies in the spring and summer of this year.

In more than 20 cases, the hackers successfully gained access to the target companies' networks, giving them the potential for operational control and the ability to cut off electricity to U.S. homes and businesses, the Symantec report said.

Graph shows US military outlays rising steeply between 2002 and 2011, where it peaked. GWB was president 2001 through 2008. Between 2001-2003 control of congress was split, 2003-2006 it was under control of republicans, 2007-2008 control was split again. Obama was president 2009 through 2016. Congress was under democratic control 2009 through 2010, with split control 2011 through 2014.

Military spending dropped continuously 2012 through 2015 and leveled off through 2017. Obama was president 2009 through 2016. Congress was under democratic control 2009 through 2010, split control 2011 through 2014, and under republican control 2015-2016.

I'm not seeing that either the president OR congress has control over military spending, and neither party seems more or less capable of blowing large chunks of money on our bloated military.

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.